Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook

with a small Whig faction which refused to desert
the “principle” of aristocratic government—­the
“government by the wise,” but the Tories
who came into power under Derby were forced by the
popular demand voiced even to the point of rioting,
themselves to present a Reform Bill. Disraeli’s
measure, introduced with a number of “fancy franchises,”
which, in effect, sought to counteract the giving of
the vote to British working-men, was quickly subjected
to such caustic criticism that all the planned advantages
to Conservatism were soon thrown overboard, and a
Bill presented so Radical as to permit a transfer of
political power to the working classes[1396].
The Reform Bill of 1867 changed Great Britain from
a government by aristocracy to one by democracy.
A new nation came into being. The friends of
the North had triumphed.

Thus in addition to the play of diplomatic incidents,
the incidental frictions, the effect on trade relations,
the applications of British neutrality, and the general
policy of the Government, there existed for Great
Britain a great issue in the outcome of the Civil War—­the
issue of the adoption of democratic institutions.
It affected at every turn British public attitude,
creating an intensity and bitterness of tone, on both
sides, unexampled in the expressions of a neutral people.
In America this was little understood, and American
writers both during the war and long afterwards, gave
little attention to it[1397]. Immediately upon
the conclusion of the war, Goldwin Smith, whose words
during the conflict were bitter toward the aristocracy,
declared that “the territorial aristocracy of
this country and the clergy of the Established Church”
would have been excusable “if they could only
have said frankly that they desired the downfall of
institutions opposed to their own, instead of talking
about their sympathy for the weak, and their respect
for national independence, and their anxiety for the
triumph of Free Trade[1398].” This was stated
before the democratic hope in England had been realized.
Three years later the same staunch friend of the North,
now removed to America and occupying a chair of history
at Cornell University, wrote of the British aristocracy
in excuse of their attitude: “I fought
these men hard; I believed, and believe now, that
their defeat was essential to the progress of civilization.
But I daresay we should have done pretty much as they
did, if we had been born members of a privileged order,
instead of being brought up under the blessed influence
of equality and justice[1399].”

Such judgment and such excuses will appear to the
historian as well-founded. But to Americans who
conceived the Civil War as one fought first of all
for the preservation of the nation, the issue of democracy
in England seemed of little moment and little to excuse
either the “cold neutrality” of the Government
or the tone of the press. To Americans Great
Britain appeared friendly to the dissolution of the